IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI A.Anbazhagan Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Chairman Chennai Port Trust, Chennai.

2.The Deputy Conservator, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai.

3.The Senior Accounts Officer, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER; This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certirarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent dated 17/10/2022 and quash the same and directing the respondents to fix the basic pay of the Petitioner atleast on par with his junior J.Manoharan (Employee ID 10011564) and pay the arrears of differential pay, terminal and pensionary benefits.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Gopinathan For Respondent(s): M/s. P.Ulaganathan,

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 17/10/2022 and directing the respondents to fix the basic pay of the Petitioner atleast on par with his junior J.Manoharan (Employee ID 10011564) and pay the arrears of differential pay, terminal and pensionary benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been appointed in the Marine Department of the Chennai Port Trust as an Assistant Technician on 17.05.1988 on the same day other employees viz., Velmurugan, Jagadheesan, Manoharan etc., have also been appointed with the petitioner for the same post. Further, the petitioner got promoted as Greaser, Engine Tindle, then Motor Grade II and then Motor Grade I and finally promoted as Motor Driver ODT in the year 2012 and he got superannuated on 31.05.2024. The petitioner's junior J.Manoharan was working as Monoharan was working as Motor Grade II on that time, since he did not possess required qualification. Then finally the said Manoharan promoted as Motor Driver in the year 2022. It has been 10 years after the promotion of the petitioner. The petitioner made representations dated 11.05.2022 and 23.06.2022 to rectify the difference between the basic pay of the petitioner and his junior Manoharan. No reply from the Accounting Department then the petitioner made an application under the RTI dated 06.10.2022 in the meantime, the second respondent sent an impugned order dated 17.10.2022 stating that the rectification of pay anomaly with his junior based on the evasive ground that the different category and different scale of pay that they belong. The basic pay of the said Manoharan is Rs.72,100/- but the petitioner only received basic pay of Rs.70,000/- on the pay slip of the month of April 2024 both are working in the same category. Basic pay of the petitioner is less than his junior Manoharan who got promotion after 10 years subsequent to the petitioner. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 17.10.2022.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without considering the records of the petitioner, the respondent has fixed the basic pay of the petitioner lesser than his junior Manoharan who was belatedly promoted as Motor Driver ODT in the year 2022 due to lack of required qualification. In order to rectify the pay anomaly between the petitioner and his juniro, representations have been made by the petitioner on 11.05.2022 and 23.06.2022 respectively. But the impugned letter issued without any consideration of the issue and hence, this Court may set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that without any discussion, the present impugned order has been passed. The petitioner's representation will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both side and perused the materials available on record.

6. In view of the fair submission made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 and remands the matter back to the second respondent for f